- Reason
- We already have a FP of a related flower, Image:Leucanthemum paludosum May 2008.jpg, but heck, I really like this picture! PRETTY! Super high-res too. So kill me. ;)
- Articles this image appears in
- Leucanthemum vulgare
- Creator
- Ram-Man
- Support as nominator -- Kaldari ( talk) 00:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose While I agree the flower-head is well-photographed, I really would like to see some of its stem - as it is, it looks like the flower is just kind of floating there, like a UFO. Too much "
bokeh".
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk)
19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's quite possible that the stem is actually directly under the flower and thus would not be visible, as that's how daisies typically grow (with the flower facing directly up). Kaldari ( talk) 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support well done. — αἰτίας • discussion• 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Original - its a little underexposed - the petals should be white but some of them definitely look grey. Ideally it should be reshot with less harsh lighting to reduce contrast on the petals. Mfield ( talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Mfield ( talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- On my Mac, the original looks better, on my PC, edit1 looks better. <shrugs> Kaldari ( talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are either of them calibrated? The original looked too dark on both my calibrated Mac and PC. There's going to be a difference between the two platforms if they haven't been adjusted as the Mac and PC standard gammas are different. All that said I adjusted it with reference to the histogram. Mfield ( talk) 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The "bokeh" is simply the depth of field choice of showing only the flower, and the harsh lighting is natural. I think the flower is beautiful and the photograph is well-executed. Superm401 - Talk 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support (edit 1) I enjoy the flecks of pollen. smooth0707 ( talk) 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Looks good now. FWIW, there is no such thing as "too much bokeh" (it's a quality of a lens), but I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday that ideally some connection from the subject should be made so that it isn't "floating".
Thegreenj
22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, you know what I mean: If we could see the stem, or if the ground was in slightly better focus so it was clear that it was taken from straight overhead, it would make the image better, I think. It's by no means a bad image - the detail of the flower is excellent. I just find those details too distracting to count it as the best image work :/ Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose technical details aside (like the harsh daylight), this is a really boring photo of an incredibly common flower. —
Pengo
00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll accept that you feel it looks boring, but it's clearly encyclopaedic. Even (or especially?) common flowers are notable. Keep in mind that English
[1] is spoken in many parts of the world, and not all of them have daisies.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's found in Europe, Asia, North America, Australia and New Zealand. Even the Latin name means "Common". For such a common subject, you'd have to expect a particularly compelling, aesthetically pleasing, shocking, impressive, or just highly informative image. (criteria 3). — Pengo 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll accept that you feel it looks boring, but it's clearly encyclopaedic. Even (or especially?) common flowers are notable. Keep in mind that English
[1] is spoken in many parts of the world, and not all of them have daisies.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 High quality, giant res, encyclopedic. Spencer T♦ C 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. For me, an ideal illustration of a plant would include the vegetative parts. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 10:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support Nice, but boring. Rj1020 ( talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Leucanthemum vulgare 'Filigran' Flower 2200px edit1.jpg MER-C 06:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- We already have a FP of a related flower, Image:Leucanthemum paludosum May 2008.jpg, but heck, I really like this picture! PRETTY! Super high-res too. So kill me. ;)
- Articles this image appears in
- Leucanthemum vulgare
- Creator
- Ram-Man
- Support as nominator -- Kaldari ( talk) 00:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose While I agree the flower-head is well-photographed, I really would like to see some of its stem - as it is, it looks like the flower is just kind of floating there, like a UFO. Too much "
bokeh".
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk)
19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's quite possible that the stem is actually directly under the flower and thus would not be visible, as that's how daisies typically grow (with the flower facing directly up). Kaldari ( talk) 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support well done. — αἰτίας • discussion• 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Original - its a little underexposed - the petals should be white but some of them definitely look grey. Ideally it should be reshot with less harsh lighting to reduce contrast on the petals. Mfield ( talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Mfield ( talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- On my Mac, the original looks better, on my PC, edit1 looks better. <shrugs> Kaldari ( talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are either of them calibrated? The original looked too dark on both my calibrated Mac and PC. There's going to be a difference between the two platforms if they haven't been adjusted as the Mac and PC standard gammas are different. All that said I adjusted it with reference to the histogram. Mfield ( talk) 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The "bokeh" is simply the depth of field choice of showing only the flower, and the harsh lighting is natural. I think the flower is beautiful and the photograph is well-executed. Superm401 - Talk 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support (edit 1) I enjoy the flecks of pollen. smooth0707 ( talk) 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Looks good now. FWIW, there is no such thing as "too much bokeh" (it's a quality of a lens), but I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday that ideally some connection from the subject should be made so that it isn't "floating".
Thegreenj
22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, you know what I mean: If we could see the stem, or if the ground was in slightly better focus so it was clear that it was taken from straight overhead, it would make the image better, I think. It's by no means a bad image - the detail of the flower is excellent. I just find those details too distracting to count it as the best image work :/ Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose technical details aside (like the harsh daylight), this is a really boring photo of an incredibly common flower. —
Pengo
00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll accept that you feel it looks boring, but it's clearly encyclopaedic. Even (or especially?) common flowers are notable. Keep in mind that English
[1] is spoken in many parts of the world, and not all of them have daisies.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's found in Europe, Asia, North America, Australia and New Zealand. Even the Latin name means "Common". For such a common subject, you'd have to expect a particularly compelling, aesthetically pleasing, shocking, impressive, or just highly informative image. (criteria 3). — Pengo 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll accept that you feel it looks boring, but it's clearly encyclopaedic. Even (or especially?) common flowers are notable. Keep in mind that English
[1] is spoken in many parts of the world, and not all of them have daisies.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk)
10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 High quality, giant res, encyclopedic. Spencer T♦ C 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. For me, an ideal illustration of a plant would include the vegetative parts. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 10:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support Nice, but boring. Rj1020 ( talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Leucanthemum vulgare 'Filigran' Flower 2200px edit1.jpg MER-C 06:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)